Research Question: Should Students who participate in extracurricular activies be subject for drug test?
Contributed by: Nick Greenwood
This short article focuses on whether school should have drug testing not only for extracurricular activies but for the whole school. The article first starts out in Modoc, Calif., where 150 people came together to discuss the proposal on whether schools should have ramdom drug testing in high schools. The dicussion first started for high school athletes, but more people wanted to have ramdom testing for the rest of extracurricular activies. The proposal first wanted to choose 10 ramdom students to test for drugs and alochol. Out of the meeting most people were against making random students take the drug test.
The drug-testing first started since the Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Vernonia School District v. Acton court decison. This was about a student who was caught smokeing in the school bathroom. She was asked to go to the school principle office where he went through her purse without her permission. She was caught with cigarettes, rolling papers, small amount of marijuanan, and a pipe. She was arrested and went to court where she was found innisoniate because the principle went through her purse without permission.
Since this ruling over the past couple years about five percent of school nationwide has performed drugs tests on student a
athletes, and about two percent have been testing students involved in other extracurricular activies. This started a problem for many students becasue they believed it was unfair to have to take a drug test becasue they were not on drugs and their was no reason supission for them to get drug test. An example of this in the aritle was a girl name Linday Earls. Linday was not on an athletic team and did nothing wrong in school. She was drug tested and when she graduated she came out and admitted she was unconforable all four years in high school. She thought it was unfair for students like here to have to get drug tested. Even thought she had to participate in the drug test and voiced her opinion more states were selecting ramdon drug testing for extracurricular activies. The latest to join was the state of Indiana, where they ruled in favor to drug test all students who participate in after school activies.
In this Article it talkes about student drug testing in after school activies. This was about one student who felt it was unfair to be drug tested at any time. In Oklahoma a new rule was put it by the board of education. If a student who fail the drug test or decline to take it are banned from after school activities know matter what kind. In the drug test it showed that 30 students out of 250 tested positive for some kind of tobacco or marijuana. In some ways the students felt violated because they felt on every Friday or Sat. night they didnt want to drink or do drugs because of the chance of being drug tested in school. In some ways its unfair to have to take a drug test random, but as you can see it changed the mind of many young student in the way they think on a Friday or Saturday night. Keeping the kids out of trought is the first piority in schools.
Steinberg, Jacques. (1999, August 18). Expanded School Drug Tests Face a Challenge. New York Times. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from www.nytimes.com
This article agrees and disagrees with random drug testing for schools. People say it has it pros and cons of testing students for drugs. The U.S. Supreme Court okayed testing student athletes in 1995. This was a step foward for people who wanted drug testing in school for athletes and student who participated in extracurricular activies. In a study at the University of Michigan it found that 19% of secondary school do some form of drug testing and most limit it to student who are suspected of drug use. This is a big difference from students who have a clean record and never get into trouble in school but asked to take a drug test just becuase the school wants them too. Of course the school wants students to be safe and keep a drug free enviorment for students who take advantage of learning but only about 5% of school actually have a drug testing program for student athletes. Even though many school are talking about it there are negative effects that this has on school.
First the cost is to much for school that can afford it. Each studnt test is about 25$ and if they wante to test 100 students a year they feel the mony is not worth it. That money can go to other things in the school to make it better. Also the article states about thinking of the student first. Having a kid take a drug test when their is no reason to ask them can play a big role on how that person thinks. The student now feels pressure of having to take the test and pass it. Of course if that student is not on drugs there should be no worries but it dosent always work like that. This article interviews students after they had to take the drug test and how the felt doing it. Most student answers was they felt embarassed having to take the test and they dont want to go out anymore and hang out with friends. This is not a bad thing but taking aways someones way of feeling is not good.
In this article it gives a variety of cases where schools tryed to drug test students who participated in athlethics. This article was split up into three differnt sections. The first section reviews four earlier cases where states tryed to give drug testing without parents permissions. The second part of the article was the reviews of the the four cases where the court addressed the cases, and the final section of the article was a brief conclusion and the case decisions and the reactions of the students and court. The cases that were filed was New Jersey v. T.L.O. This case was of a student smokeing in school, and was asked to leave school grounds for breaking the rule. Next the student was asked to take a drug test where she did not agree to do this. She said that it violated her rigth of the fourth admendment. She won the case in court and was not subject to take the drug test from the school.
The next case that was taken to court was Schaill v. Tippecanoe county school corporation. This was a dispute from Indiana and became the first cases on drug-testing with student athletes. This case was about a baseball coach who ordered 16 members of his baseball team to provide urine samples. This was because he had suspision some of them were on drugs during the baseball season. Five players tested positive for marijuana and the board then implemented random urine testing for athletes and cheerleaders in August 1987. This was then chagned in the fall of 1987, where two students who wished to participate in varsity swimming changed the rule. They felt it was unfair to take a drug test when their was no evidence they were on drugs or anything like that.
As you can see the drug testing policy changed through each states and time. Not everyone agrees the testing is fair, and most school had tried to add testing. School that were unsuccessul with the testing is because students feel it is unfair to be subject to testing if their is no cause to do it. Many students who take this to court end up winning becasue it does violate the fourth admentment of free speech and student rights.
Contributed by: Nick Greenwood
This short article focuses on whether school should have drug testing not only for extracurricular activies but for the whole school. The article first starts out in Modoc, Calif., where 150 people came together to discuss the proposal on whether schools should have ramdom drug testing in high schools. The dicussion first started for high school athletes, but more people wanted to have ramdom testing for the rest of extracurricular activies. The proposal first wanted to choose 10 ramdom students to test for drugs and alochol. Out of the meeting most people were against making random students take the drug test.
The drug-testing first started since the Supreme Court's 1995 decision in Vernonia School District v. Acton court decison. This was about a student who was caught smokeing in the school bathroom. She was asked to go to the school principle office where he went through her purse without her permission. She was caught with cigarettes, rolling papers, small amount of marijuanan, and a pipe. She was arrested and went to court where she was found innisoniate because the principle went through her purse without permission.
Since this ruling over the past couple years about five percent of school nationwide has performed drugs tests on student a
athletes, and about two percent have been testing students involved in other extracurricular activies. This started a problem for many students becasue they believed it was unfair to have to take a drug test becasue they were not on drugs and their was no reason supission for them to get drug test. An example of this in the aritle was a girl name Linday Earls. Linday was not on an athletic team and did nothing wrong in school. She was drug tested and when she graduated she came out and admitted she was unconforable all four years in high school. She thought it was unfair for students like here to have to get drug tested. Even thought she had to participate in the drug test and voiced her opinion more states were selecting ramdon drug testing for extracurricular activies. The latest to join was the state of Indiana, where they ruled in favor to drug test all students who participate in after school activies.
Lewin, Tamar. (2002, March 20). Schools Across U.S. Await Ruling on Drug Tests. New York Times. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907E7DA1238F933A15750C0A9649C8B63
In this Article it talkes about student drug testing in after school activies. This was about one student who felt it was unfair to be drug tested at any time. In Oklahoma a new rule was put it by the board of education. If a student who fail the drug test or decline to take it are banned from after school activities know matter what kind. In the drug test it showed that 30 students out of 250 tested positive for some kind of tobacco or marijuana. In some ways the students felt violated because they felt on every Friday or Sat. night they didnt want to drink or do drugs because of the chance of being drug tested in school. In some ways its unfair to have to take a drug test random, but as you can see it changed the mind of many young student in the way they think on a Friday or Saturday night. Keeping the kids out of trought is the first piority in schools.
Steinberg, Jacques. (1999, August 18). Expanded School Drug Tests Face a Challenge. New York Times. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from www.nytimes.com
This article agrees and disagrees with random drug testing for schools. People say it has it pros and cons of testing students for drugs. The U.S. Supreme Court okayed testing student athletes in 1995. This was a step foward for people who wanted drug testing in school for athletes and student who participated in extracurricular activies. In a study at the University of Michigan it found that 19% of secondary school do some form of drug testing and most limit it to student who are suspected of drug use. This is a big difference from students who have a clean record and never get into trouble in school but asked to take a drug test just becuase the school wants them too. Of course the school wants students to be safe and keep a drug free enviorment for students who take advantage of learning but only about 5% of school actually have a drug testing program for student athletes. Even though many school are talking about it there are negative effects that this has on school.
First the cost is to much for school that can afford it. Each studnt test is about 25$ and if they wante to test 100 students a year they feel the mony is not worth it. That money can go to other things in the school to make it better. Also the article states about thinking of the student first. Having a kid take a drug test when their is no reason to ask them can play a big role on how that person thinks. The student now feels pressure of having to take the test and pass it. Of course if that student is not on drugs there should be no worries but it dosent always work like that. This article interviews students after they had to take the drug test and how the felt doing it. Most student answers was they felt embarassed having to take the test and they dont want to go out anymore and hang out with friends. This is not a bad thing but taking aways someones way of feeling is not good.
Stover, Del. (2004, September) Student Drug Testing Beyond Politics. Education Digest, 70, 53-55. http://0-web.ebscohost.com.helin.uri.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=5&hid=105&sid=30f8dda0-5148-4cc5-8aa2-4707c8cc29a9%40sessionmgr102
Edmonson, Stacey. (2002). The balance between student drug testing and Fourth Amendment rights in response to Board of Education v. Earls. Education and the Law, 14, 265-274. http://0-web.ebscohost.com.helin.uri.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=7&hid=106&sid=7220a71a-a00e-41b6-860e-44b3400c57d5%40sessionmgr103
In this article it gives a variety of cases where schools tryed to drug test students who participated in athlethics. This article was split up into three differnt sections. The first section reviews four earlier cases where states tryed to give drug testing without parents permissions. The second part of the article was the reviews of the the four cases where the court addressed the cases, and the final section of the article was a brief conclusion and the case decisions and the reactions of the students and court. The cases that were filed was New Jersey v. T.L.O. This case was of a student smokeing in school, and was asked to leave school grounds for breaking the rule. Next the student was asked to take a drug test where she did not agree to do this. She said that it violated her rigth of the fourth admendment. She won the case in court and was not subject to take the drug test from the school.
The next case that was taken to court was Schaill v. Tippecanoe county school corporation. This was a dispute from Indiana and became the first cases on drug-testing with student athletes. This case was about a baseball coach who ordered 16 members of his baseball team to provide urine samples. This was because he had suspision some of them were on drugs during the baseball season. Five players tested positive for marijuana and the board then implemented random urine testing for athletes and cheerleaders in August 1987. This was then chagned in the fall of 1987, where two students who wished to participate in varsity swimming changed the rule. They felt it was unfair to take a drug test when their was no evidence they were on drugs or anything like that.
As you can see the drug testing policy changed through each states and time. Not everyone agrees the testing is fair, and most school had tried to add testing. School that were unsuccessul with the testing is because students feel it is unfair to be subject to testing if their is no cause to do it. Many students who take this to court end up winning becasue it does violate the fourth admentment of free speech and student rights.
Russo, Charles. (2001) Drug testing of Students. Education and the Law, 13, 155-162. weblink
EDC 102 Fnl Prj Eval Part I - Nick